Ed Schultz Dragged Back To Court
Yikes. Disgraced behemoth broadcaster Ed Schultz is lumbering back to court.
Given how Schultz’s breach of partnership trial last year reduced him to running a super PAC out of a UPS store — total haul $25 before he decamped to Vladimir Putin’s television station — who knows what joys these new proceeding could bring? Especially for MSNBC president Phil Griffin, who canceled “The Ed Show” shortly after Schultz unwittingly implicated him in perjury at the trial.
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit just scheduled for Oct. 25 oral arguments for Michael Queen’s appeal of the jury verdict against him. He contends that the trial judge, Beryl Howell, an Obama appointee and donor, stacked the decks against him from start to finish.
Howell gave the jury faulty instructions, improperly allowed a racially inflammatory closing argument by Schultz’s lawyer, ridiculed and berated Queen’s lawyer, failed to disqualify the jury foreman when he gave her strong evidence one of Schultz’s key witnesses was likely his neighbor, says his appeal for a new trial.
Queen, a highly-regarded veteran NBC Washington employee, did not respond to requests for comment. Tim Russert, who backed his quest to get Schultz on television, expired shortly before Queen produced a pilot for what later became the “Ed Show.”
Meanwhile, if present putrescent trends continues the appeals court hearing is likely to be another Daily Caller exclusive. Somebody who accidentally wandered into the shiny courtroom last year might have easily assumed the case was some kind of esoteric contract dispute between two businessman associated with an obscure company. The only reporters present were The Mirror doyenne Betsy Rothstein and her new phone enthusiast co-worker.
Just ponder that sheer liberal putrescence for a moment: One of the best known cable news hosts in the country is noticeably absent from his show all week for a trial in Washington federal court. And not a single mainstream publication covers it.
Why? Well, Huffington Post honcho Sam Stein is a paid MSNBC contributor so that pretty much explains his website’s blackout.
But longtime Politico media blogger Dylan Byers, who likes to disguise MSNBC spin as his own objective reporting, claimed to Washington Examiner reporter Eddie Scarry, who looked into the cover-up, that he ignored the trial because Schultz was not that important (hey, who cares about a major MSNBC personality?) and the trial was not very interesting. Perjury is boring?
Washington Post media reporter Paul Farhi, another no-show, professed ignorance when an editor later asked why he ignored it. Actually, he was told about the case months in advance.
Media blogger Erik Wemple told Scarry that he thought The Mirror did a good job covering the proceedings and he had nothing to add. Really, Wemple? You’re so brilliant you “add” something unique to every single thing you write about?
Still, the liberal media putrescence band plays on.
Politico media blogger Hadas Gold, who did not even ask Griffin about the trial when she got a rare interview with him this June, ignored inquiries about whether she would cover the appeals court hearing. The puff piece reads like she took a cue from co-worker Ken Vogel and gave Griffin an advance draft for approval.
All the other fancy pants journos mentioned above also did not answer inquiries.
But the Washington Gadfly has direct numbers for all of them and is prepared to donate $100 to Phil Griffin’s legal defense fund for every minute anybody stays on the phone for a recorded conversation about this matter.
The obvious question for Stein: Hey, you were at Barack Obama’s first press conference. What question did Ed Schultz ask him?
Note: personal references are avoided here as much as possible. But please allow me to make one point to preempt more dishonesty when I get these people on the phone. The standard response to suggestions from journalists when I suggest they follow up on scoops here, which by their own pubs’ standards merit coverage is, “I’m not going to report your story.”
This is not my story. This is Michael Queen’s story. He is the victim. He suffered huge injustices because Chris Matthews and everybody else who yelps about income inequality would not intervene to insure Queen got his promised 25 percent cut for arranging a television show that made Schultz millions of dollars.
Queen, who was not even seeking publicity when I independently stumbled upon the case early last year, is also a hero for not walking away from this fight, like lesser men would have done. Queen’s personal saga should be an inspiration for countless other people like him who work tirelessly behind the scenes for famous people in Washington.
If, by some miracle, the appeals court hearing is covered and Queen gets the recognition he deserves and Phil Griffin is relegated to the MSNBC breaking news desk with his fellow fabricator, he benefits. I don’t. Is that clear now?
Or are people suggesting that promoting this story is really a shrewd career move? Because it will surely get me a paid MSNBC gig, just like Sam Stein?